I like the new rules very much (as of halfway into my first game with them). A few comments from someone who is new to this (so take with a grain of salt). Also I should mention that my experience with the old rules is fairly modest.

1. Re: the goal of reduced micromanagement: The addition of the "free military unit" that is content in republic seems to increase micromanagement, primarily because there's no easy way to tell who is using their "freebie". (Technically, there was the same problem when using Women's sufferage, but it was much less of a big deal since by then my happiness from luxuries was leveraged way up and my cities were larger, having to turn a specialist into an entertainer in a city of size 20 is less of a big deal than removing a guy from the land in a city of 4.) I mention republic here because I didn't find it as problematic when under martial law governments...just easier to keep the peace in general.

I recognize this is more of an interface problem than a rules problem, but assuming the interface isn't changing, I know I would far prefer the rule to change so that the calculation of the freebie to be empire-wide (or continent-wide) to avoid the annoyance associated with every move.

2. Re: historical accuracy: Caravans can't travel through the desert??? Isn't that where they do their best work?

3. Am I right in seeing that the diplomats and caravans cost upkeep and cause unhappiness? Or just confused? If so, I can understand caravans costing upkeep, and even perhaps unhappiness (if they couldn't bring their wives with them - my knowledge about historical caravans is very limited), but is a diplomat not just one guy (or if not, a spy certainly is). How can his upkeep/unahappiness be at all comparable to an entire regiment of soldiers?

4. Could you explain the notion of waste a bit more in the rules? For example, extra units cause "food waste", but how much? Is it the same as consumption? Do settlers still cost consumption? Why are they hungrier than soldiers? (Yeah, I could ask the last question in the old rules, but this set is more interested in accuracy...)

5. Since the differences between governments is more subtle, it's a bit hard to figure out what is going on. For example, is my trade going to be higher in a monarchy/federation or a republic? The one has a trade bonus, but also trade waste. Perhaps it's just a bigger "tip" section in the rules. The answer "it depends" can be a problematic one, at least as a new player, since I'd have to calculate it out, and recalculate as my civ changes. Particularly if I have the Statue of Liberty and could change every turn.

Also I find the lack of trade bonuses on the ocean a bummer - would it make sense to reduce the base trade on ocean by 1? Presumably if it would, you'd have done it, so why not? (Ideally the answer to this will be detailed enough that I learn something about the game and its balance...)

6. After I have researched Trade, but before the Corporation (ie for most of the game) it seems like there's a big disadvantage to governments that have high corruption eg republic being far worse than monarchy if I have a widespread empire. Is this true? If so, why?

One more set of questions, regarding units moving into the defender's space: this makes great sense for infantry/cavalry, as I really have to go out and fight them on their own terrain/square when I attack, but why for ranged attacks (e.g., archers?) Further, if the idea is that I have to fight on their turf (and therefore end there when the battle is over if I survive), then shouldn't I move regardless of ZOC? This of course would produce an effect where after attacking, I can't get back home due to ZOC without fighting my way out, but that seems quite realistic.

Logistically on this front, it brings a question to my attention, which is how do I know how many moves I'll have left after the combat? (I know that it depends on how the combat goes, but what is the calculation?)

Thank you for your comments Raphael. I'm sorry that I was not around when you wrote them, because all them are really good points. I'll try to answer now, hoping it is still useful either for you or other players.

1) I agree. The management of military unhappiness is a bit annoying, and I have changed the related rules several times trying to reduce the annoyances, but it is not easy.I'll try to re-enable the happy borders rule so units inside your borders do not cause unhappiness.

I know I would far prefer the rule to change so that the calculation of the freebie to be empire-wide (or continent-wide) to avoid the annoyance associated with every move

I too would like that it was possible the way you describe.

2)

Caravans can't travel through the desert??

You are right . There is no longer a reason to keep the special movement of caravans, that requires a road or river, this could be reverted to classic rules.

3) They cost upkeep, but not unhappiness since they are "non military" units.I find important to pay upkeep for all units with defense 1 (as caravans and explorers), because they can defend a city as well as a warrior. It also discourages players to build lots of caravans and store them, to finish later a wonder in one single turn. Diplomats/Spies has no defense/attack, but can block enemy movements and perform diplomatic attacks, and I think such units with no upkeep costs could be a possible hole to exploits, even when I'm not sure if really needed, or realistic.

4)

extra units cause "food waste", but how much? Is it the same as consumption?

Yes, it is the same as consumption, ie one food per extra unit. When the number of such units is greater than the population of the city, you will see in the city view a food icon under the affected units.

Do settlers still cost consumption? Why are they hungrier than soldiers?

Settlers do not cost consumption, and I admit it is not very realistic, but I did it because the AI creates lots of settlers at start of game (they do not foresee the lack of remaining land as well as humans), and the extra food costs were a big handicap. This way, settlers can be used as workers, with the same upkeep costs.

5)

since I'd have to calculate it out, and recalculate as my civ changes. Particularly if I have the Statue of Liberty and could change every turn

.I think I understand your point, and my intention when I designed the governments was to try to avoid that certain government is clearly the best one in a certain situation, something that would force players to change continually as the situation changes. I tried that the optimal government is related to the way you plan to play, more than the surrounding scenario. And once you have optimized your civilization to get the max out of your government, any change to other government will make it worse for some turns, until you are adapted to the new one.

Something important in this ruleset, that civ3 players use to realize, but civ2 players use to miss, is the importance of "celebration" in order to multiply your trade, even when rapture growth is disabled. The governments that allow celebration can be used to increase your income if you dedicate some turns to invest in luxury until most of your cities start to celebrate, then the extra trade generated allows you to maintain the celebrations with much less luxury rates, and the overall income can be much greater if properly done (specially with the help of buildings, wonders, and governments that grants luxury bonuses).

Taking all the variables into account, I think it does not use to be possible to say that a certain government is better than other in a certain situation, they just have different advantages and disadvantages, and I find it fun to learn to play with them all. As a huge simplification: use Democracy to maximize Science, Fundamentalism to maximize Gold income, Communism for large empires to maximize Shields production, Federation for widespread civilizations to maximize Luxury (for city celebration), and Monarchy for huge armies with lots of units per city. Then, Despotism and Tribal for small empires that are often at war.

would it make sense to reduce the base trade on ocean by 1?

If Democracy/Republic grant a trade bonus in ocean, then those will be by far the best governments for naval empires, and I think historically they were often ruled by monarchies. I just tried to balance the effect so other governments like Monarchy can be effective at islands too.Note that celebration bonuses do apply at ocean, and both democracies and monarchies can celebrate.

6) It is not true when you compare Monarchy to Republic. The only governments that allow an advantage when your empire is widespread are Federation and Comunism. All other governments are affected the same by distance: +2% corruption and waste per tile of distance to capital (+1% once Corporation is researched).The other 25% of corruption (trade lost) and 5% of waste (shields lost), that you see for Republic, are the same for all cities, no matter the techs or distance to capital.Maybe you notice differences due to the rounding effect, but it should not affect that much.

7)

but why for ranged attacks

This server setting affects all units the same. Either you enable or disable it for all units.I was testing an alternative to give bombardment ability to artillery so they can attack without moving, but AI does not know how to use it yet, and it would affect a lot the combat strategies, so it is still a work in progress.

how do I know how many moves I'll have left after the combat?

Good question. I'm not sure, I think if the unit loses 1/3 of his hit points, it also loses 1/3 of his movement points. And you should take into account 1 additional move point due to the attack. Usually only units with 3 mp can move after the attack, or units with 2 mp that move between roads (or to enemy ZoC) and are not very damaged.

About the Zoc, I tried to explain it in this post: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=614&start=30#p3914(I like to see it as the need to advance in order to destroy the last unit of the enemy army, while there is no need to advance to attack the core units of the army).